Files in this package

Content in the Dryad
Digital Repository is offered "as is." By downloading files, you agree
to the Dryad Terms of Service.
To the extent possible under law, the authors have waived all copyright
and related or neighboring rights to this data.

Tables 1-7. Observed behavior of Alia carinata in response to cues from Cancer productus from 1 of 7 experiments.
Fields:
1. Date - Date of observation
2. bin - replicate
3. tmt - Cue Treatment (as described and abbreviated in table 1 of Grason AmNat, with the exception that the letter “P” is used in the manuscript to stand for Predator cues, while in these files “C” is used to stand in for Crab, thus “CxIC” here is the Crab consuming conspecific prey)
4. crab - Presence of crab/predator cues in cue treatment (Y/N)
5. ic - presence of chemical cues from injured conspecifics in cue treatment (Y/N)
6. hide/hiding - how many snails were “hiding” under structure in bin on that observation date, total number of snails in bin is 1 unless otherwise listed in Table 2 of manuscript
7. run/running - how many snails were attempting to “flee” by emersing on that date
8. both - sum of “run” and “hide”
9. cum.hide - cumulative number of “hide” observations for that bin to date, used for calculating best metric of avoidance.
10. cum. run - as above for emersion behavior
11. cum.both - as above for sum of run and hide
12. no.snails (in some tables) - total number of snails in bin on which behavioral obs were made
13. #notes (in some tables) - detailed related to removal of snails due to death.
14. cum.obs (in Alia only) - total number of snail*observations for a given bin

Tables 1-7. Observed behavior of Batillaria attramentaria in response to cues from Cancer productus from 1 of 7 experiments.
Fields:
1. Date - Date of observation
2. bin - replicate
3. tmt - Cue Treatment (as described and abbreviated in table 1 of Grason AmNat, with the exception that the letter “P” is used in the manuscript to stand for Predator cues, while in these files “C” is used to stand in for Crab, thus “CxIC” here is the Crab consuming conspecific prey)
4. crab - Presence of crab/predator cues in cue treatment (Y/N)
5. ic - presence of chemical cues from injured conspecifics in cue treatment (Y/N)
6. hide/hiding - how many snails were “hiding” under structure in bin on that observation date, total number of snails in bin is 1 unless otherwise listed in Table 2 of manuscript
7. run/running - how many snails were attempting to “flee” by emersing on that date
8. both - sum of “run” and “hide”
9. cum.hide - cumulative number of “hide” observations for that bin to date, used for calculating best metric of avoidance.
10. cum. run - as above for emersion behavior
11. cum.both - as above for sum of run and hide
12. no.snails (in some tables) - total number of snails in bin on which behavioral obs were made
13. #notes (in some tables) - detailed related to removal of snails due to death.

Tables 1-7. Observed behavior of Ilyanassa obsoleta in response to cues from Cancer productus from 1 of 7 experiments.
Fields:
1. Date - Date of observation
2. bin - replicate
3. tmt - Cue Treatment (as described and abbreviated in table 1 of Grason AmNat, with the exception that the letter “P” is used in the manuscript to stand for Predator cues, while in these files “C” is used to stand in for Crab, thus “CxIC” here is the Crab consuming conspecific prey)
4. crab - Presence of crab/predator cues in cue treatment (Y/N)
5. ic - presence of chemical cues from injured conspecifics in cue treatment (Y/N)
6. hide/hiding - how many snails were “hiding” under structure in bin on that observation date, total number of snails in bin is 1 unless otherwise listed in Table 2 of manuscript
7. run/running - how many snails were attempting to “flee” by emersing on that date
8. both - sum of “run” and “hide”
9. cum.hide - cumulative number of “hide” observations for that bin to date, used for calculating best metric of avoidance.
10. cum. run - as above for emersion behavior
11. cum.both - as above for sum of run and hide
12. no.snails (in some tables) - total number of snails in bin on which behavioral obs were made
13. #notes (in some tables) - detailed related to removal of snails due to death.

Tables 1-7. Observed behavior of Littorina sitkana in response to cues from Cancer productus from 1 of 7 experiments.
Fields:
1. Date - Date of observation
2. bin - replicate
3. tmt - Cue Treatment (as described and abbreviated in table 1 of Grason AmNat, with the exception that the letter “P” is used in the manuscript to stand for Predator cues, while in these files “C” is used to stand in for Crab, thus “CxIC” here is the Crab consuming conspecific prey)
4. crab - Presence of crab/predator cues in cue treatment (Y/N)
5. ic - presence of chemical cues from injured conspecifics in cue treatment (Y/N)
6. hide/hiding - how many snails were “hiding” under structure in bin on that observation date, total number of snails in bin is 1 unless otherwise listed in Table 2 of manuscript
7. run/running - how many snails were attempting to “flee” by emersing on that date
8. both - sum of “run” and “hide”
9. cum.hide - cumulative number of “hide” observations for that bin to date, used for calculating best metric of avoidance.
10. cum. run - as above for emersion behavior
11. cum.both - as above for sum of run and hide
12. no.snails (in some tables) - total number of snails in bin on which behavioral obs were made
13. #notes (in some tables) - detailed related to removal of snails due to death.

Tables 1-7. Observed behavior of Nucella lamellosa in response to cues from Cancer productus from 1 of 7 experiments.
Fields:
1. Date - Date of observation
2. bin - replicate
3. tmt - Cue Treatment (as described and abbreviated in table 1 of Grason AmNat, with the exception that the letter “P” is used in the manuscript to stand for Predator cues, while in these files “C” is used to stand in for Crab, thus “CxIC” here is the Crab consuming conspecific prey)
4. crab - Presence of crab/predator cues in cue treatment (Y/N)
5. ic - presence of chemical cues from injured conspecifics in cue treatment (Y/N)
6. hide/hiding - how many snails were “hiding” under structure in bin on that observation date, total number of snails in bin is 1 unless otherwise listed in Table 2 of manuscript
7. run/running - how many snails were attempting to “flee” by emersing on that date
8. both - sum of “run” and “hide”
9. cum.hide - cumulative number of “hide” observations for that bin to date, used for calculating best metric of avoidance.
10. cum. run - as above for emersion behavior
11. cum.both - as above for sum of run and hide
12. no.snails (in some tables) - total number of snails in bin on which behavioral obs were made
13. #notes (in some tables) - detailed related to removal of snails due to death.

Tables 1-7. Observed behavior of Ocenebra inornata in response to cues from Cancer productus from 1 of 7 experiments.
Fields:
1. Date - Date of observation
2. bin - replicate
3. tmt - Cue Treatment (as described and abbreviated in table 1 of Grason AmNat, with the exception that the letter “P” is used in the manuscript to stand for Predator cues, while in these files “C” is used to stand in for Crab, thus “CxIC” here is the Crab consuming conspecific prey)
4. crab - Presence of crab/predator cues in cue treatment (Y/N)
5. ic - presence of chemical cues from injured conspecifics in cue treatment (Y/N)
6. hide/hiding - how many snails were “hiding” under structure in bin on that observation date, total number of snails in bin is 1 unless otherwise listed in Table 2 of manuscript
7. run/running - how many snails were attempting to “flee” by emersing on that date
8. both - sum of “run” and “hide”
9. cum.hide - cumulative number of “hide” observations for that bin to date, used for calculating best metric of avoidance.
10. cum. run - as above for emersion behavior
11. cum.both - as above for sum of run and hide
12. no.snails (in some tables) - total number of snails in bin on which behavioral obs were made
13. #notes (in some tables) - detailed related to removal of snails due to death.

Tables 1-7. Observed behavior of Urosalpinx cinerea in response to cues from Cancer productus from 1 of 7 experiments.
Fields:
1. Date - Date of observation
2. bin - replicate
3. tmt - Cue Treatment (as described and abbreviated in table 1 of Grason AmNat, with the exception that the letter “P” is used in the manuscript to stand for Predator cues, while in these files “C” is used to stand in for Crab, thus “CxIC” here is the Crab consuming conspecific prey)
4. crab - Presence of crab/predator cues in cue treatment (Y/N)
5. ic - presence of chemical cues from injured conspecifics in cue treatment (Y/N)
6. hide/hiding - how many snails were “hiding” under structure in bin on that observation date, total number of snails in bin is 1 unless otherwise listed in Table 2 of manuscript
7. run/running - how many snails were attempting to “flee” by emersing on that date
8. both - sum of “run” and “hide”
9. cum.hide - cumulative number of “hide” observations for that bin to date, used for calculating best metric of avoidance.
10. cum. run - as above for emersion behavior
11. cum.both - as above for sum of run and hide
12. no.snails (in some tables) - total number of snails in bin on which behavioral obs were made
13. #notes (in some tables) - detailed related to removal of snails due to death.
14. cum.obs (in Alia only) - total number of snail*observations for a given bin

AbstractThough prey use a variety of information sources to assess predation risk, evolutionary cohistory with a predator could constrain information use, and nonnative prey might fail to recognize risk from a novel predator. Nonnative prey might instead use generalized risk assessment, relying on general alarm signals from injured conspecifics rather than cues from predators. I tested the influence of shared predator-prey history on information use, comparing responses among three native and four nonnative prey species to chemical cues from a native predator and cues from injured conspecific prey. Nonnative prey demonstrated information generalism: (1) responding stronger to alarm cues released by injured conspecific prey than to cues from predators and (2) responding similarly to alarm cues as to cues from predators consuming injured conspecific prey. By contrast, for native prey, multiple information sources were required to elicit the greatest defense. The influence of other sources of chemical information was not predicted by cohistory with the predator: only one nonnative snail responded to the predator; digestion was important for only two native species; the identity of injured prey was important for all prey; and predator and prey cues contributed additively to prey response. Information generalism, hypothesized to be costly in coevolved interactions, could facilitate invasions as a driver of or response to introduction to novel habitats.